morning, though, at 7:00 eastern/4:00 a.m. pacific. we take to you the senate homeland security and governmental affairs committee hearing on threats to the homeland. among the witnesses today, f.b.i. director christopher wray. that begins now here on c-span. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

senator johnson: good morning. this hearing of the senate committee on homeland security, government affairs committee, is called to order. this is our annual threats to the homeland hearing. i want to welcome our witnesses. i'd like to start, though, by acknowledging the victims of the hurricanes in houston, texas, in florida, throughout the caribbean but in particular puerto rico. i'm sure we'll be discussing that quite a bit. maybe wasn't contemplated when we first set up this and scheduled this hearing on the other enormous threats, but there's real threats to human life occurring now throughout our nation and we'll certainly acknowledge that. all those individuals are in our thoughts and prayers. i'm sure everybody on this committee joins me in that.

we are pleased to welcome the acting secretary of homeland security, elaine duke. director of the federal bureau of investigation, christopher wray. and nicholas rasmussen. we want to thank all of you for your service. these are perilous times. the threats that face our homeland are growing. they're mess t.s.a. sizing. i don't envy any of your tasks. these are serious responsibilities. we are all grateful you stepped up to the plate and we have quality individuals with real talent that are accepting that responsibility. the mission statement of this committee is pretty simple. to enhance the economic and national security of america and to promote the efficient -- more efficient, effective, accountable government. very similar, i'd imagine, to some of the mission statements of your own departments and agencies. i don't want to spend a whole lot of time because we got a

number of members here. but, again, i just want to acknowledge your service to this nation, the sacrifice you and your families are undertaking to serve this nation and with that i'll turn . over to senator mccaskill senator mccaskill: thank you very much, mr. chairman. directors wray and rasmussen, director duke, i welcome you for the first time. i want to let you know i appreciate the efforts that you and fema are making to assist the victims of hurricanes in texas, in florida and puerto rico. i will have to say, though, we are very concerned about what we're seeing in puerto rico. i know there have been logistical challenges because of the devastation in puerto rico, but i'm looking forward to the briefing that we're going to receive today from fema about what is actually occurring on the ground.

those americans are very deserving of whatever it takes for us to address the crisis, the humanitarian crisis that is impacting 3.5 million american citizens in puerto rico as we speak today. the hearing today is about threats to the homeland. heartbreakingly just last month, we suffered a terrorist attack here at home. the violence perpetrated by white supremacists and neo-nazis at the charlottesville rally was tragic, vial and evil. it stunned many of us who thought that chance of blood and soil belonged in a film footage from a nuremberg rally, not a 21st century american college. the boldness and the outspokenness of something that is so evil, proudly marching under a nazi flag is something i think many of us wouldn't think we'd see in this country but now we have seen it. i direct your attention to a document that is on the easal.

i don't think many americans understand the level of threat that we have in this country from white supremacists, anti-government and other violent extremists. if you look at the comparison -- and this data comes from the g.a.o. this isn't from a think tank. this isn't from anybody that has bias. this is from the government auditors. that we've had 62 incidents since 9/11, and 106 fatalities by the white supremacists, anti-government and other violent extremists. compare that to 23 acts of violence by islamic violent extremists. the fatalities are almost equal. and so one of my goals of this hearing today is to get specific responses as to whether or not the level of investigation response matches the level of threat as it relates to these two types of terrorists that want to do harm to american citizens.

and i'm worried that we have -- this committee is a good example. we've had multiple hearings on the threat of isis as it relates to homeland security. we've had zero hearings about the threat of domestic terrorists and the threat they pose in our country and our response to it. we also face the threats from foreign terrorist organizations like isis and those inspired by them. we only need to look overseas over the past four months to see what our allies have suffered. the suicide bombers in manchester, england, in june. the pedestrians on the london bridge. in august, a van in barcelona, spain. and just this month, a bucket bomb on a subway in london. we know they aren't just targeting europe. in addition to domestic terrorists, they are also foreign terrorists who want to kill americans and who want to importantly radicalize americans here at home to do so that's why we depend on you,

the men and women of the d.h.s., the f.b.i. and we want you to prevent attacks and keep america safe. that's why i'm so concerned about some of the budget choices made by this administration. for instance, mass transit locations and other soft targets where large groups of people gather has served as prime targets. in addition to aviation security, the t.s.a. helps secure mass transit, passenger rail, railways, pipelines and sea ports. according to t.s.a., more than 10 billion passenger trips are taken on mass transit systems each year. yet, the president's budget plans to cut critical t.s.a. programs at a time that we could not afford to let up when it comes to security measures. a large portion of this cut is taken from the viper teams. the viper teams deploy all across the country to provide critical assistance with securing airports, subways and bus terminals. and by the way, they also deployed to houston to assist with recovery. but the president's budget

would cut them by $43 million, reducing viper teams from 31 down to eight teams to cover the entire country. the president's budget would also slash other d.h.s. programs that provide critical security to our transportation systems. in july, d.h.s. announced 29 awards to the complex coordinated terrorist attack grant program, including one that would help prepare kansas city plans and enhance communication systems and another that would allow st. louis to build an integrated response structure among first responders. this is a type of assistance we should be providing our cities in the face of threats like london, barcelona and manchester. but the president's budget will eliminate all of these grant programs for next year. there unfortunately isn't enough time to discuss in seven minutes or a single hearing all the threats our country faces. we face cyberransom ware attacks. this month d.h.s. ordered agencies to remove cybersecurity software from federal computer systems

because of its manufacturers ties to russian intelligence. we have border security issues. we even have potential threats to agriculture. just last month, i had a roundtable in kansas city to learn what agriterrorism could do to the nation's confidence and its food supply. i am glad you are here today to talk about the greatest threats are, what we are doing about them and most importantly what we can do to help you in your most important work. thank you very much. senator johnson: thanks, senator mccaskill. i ask my opening statement be entered in the record. it's the tradition of this committee to swear in witnesses. if you all stand and raise your right hand. do you swear the testimony you give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing be the truth so help you god? please be seated. our first witness is the honorable elaine duke. elaine duke is acting secretary of the department of homeland security. she became the acting secretary on july 31. she's served as deputy

secretary since april. her previous decades of federal service include two years at the department's undersecretary for management. acting secretary duke. secretary duke: thank you, chairman johnson, ranking member mccaskill and distinguished members of the committee. it's my honor to testify this morning on behalf of the men and women of d.h.s. who shield our nation from threats of terror each and every single day. last night we learned of a c.b.p. agent that was shot and is critically ill in jacksonville, florida. and each week i sign out condolence letters for law enforcement letters. it's -- on behalf of them that i testify today and came back to service. in recent weeks, hurricane harvey, irma, jose and maria have placed a spotlight on natural disasters. with fema's leadership, our department and the whole federal government have come together to respond to these crises, and i am impressed with the professionalism i have witnessed. but the challenges in places

like puerto rico are evidence there's a long road ahead. to those that have been caught up in the disasters, let me say this. i promise to do everything in my power to bring relief, and we will stand with you side by side in the weeks, months and years to come. but national -- natural disasters are not the only threats we face as a nation. right now, the terrorist threat to our country equals and in many ways exceeds that in the period of 9/11. we are seeing a surge in terrorist activity because the fundamentals of terrorism have changed. our enemies are crowdsourcing their violence online, promoting a do-it-yourself approach that involves using any weapons their followers can get their hands on easily. the primary international terror threat facing our country is from global jihadist groups. however, the department is also focused on the threat of domestic terrorism.

ideologically, motivated extremists here in the united states are a threat to our nation, our people and our values. i condemn this hate and violence, and my department is focused on countering it. d.h.s. will not stand on the sidelines as these threats spread, and we will not allow pervasive terrorism to become the new normal. we are tackling the dangers ahead in two ways. first, we are rethinking homeland security for a new age. there is no longer a home game and away game. the line is blurred and the threats are connected across borders. that is why d.h.s.'s moving towards a more integrated approach, bringing together intelligence, operations, interagency engagement and international action like never before. second, we are raising the baseline of our security posture across the board. we are looking at everything from travelers' screening to information sharing.

higher threat levels mean we need higher standards. for example, we are now requiring all foreign governments to share critical data with us on terrorists and criminals and to help us confidently identify their nationals. we must know who is coming into our country and make sure they do not pose a threat. that is why i recommended and the president approved tough but tailored restrictions against countries who do not cooperate with us on immigration screening and vetting. this will protect america and hold foreign governments accountable. similarly, we are raising elevation -- the elevating aviation security standards. our ongoing global aviation security plan, which we began this summer, is making u.s. bound flights more secure and raising the baseline of aviation security worldwide. we are also making historic moves to keep dangerous individuals and goods from entering america illegally.

that includes building a wall in the southwest border and cracking down on transnational criminal organizations that bring drugs, violence and other threats across our borders. within our borders, we are rededicating ourselves to terrorism prevention to keep extremists from radicalizing our people. as part of this effort, we are prioritizing education and community awareness. we are redoubling our efforts to stop terrorists recruitment and we are emphasizing the importance of early warning to make sure communities report suspicious activity before it is too late. americans are also alarmed by the spike in cyberattacks. our adversaries continue to develop advanced capabilities online. they seek to undermine our critical infrastructure, target our livelihoods and our secrets and threaten our democracy. on behalf of the entire department, i appreciate the critical role this committee plays in helping us execute our

mission. i also respectfully ask the committee to focus on re-authorizing our department as quickly as possible. thank you for letting me appear today and i look forward to your questions. senator johnson: thank you, secretary duke. ur next witness is christopher wray. christopher wray is the director of the federal bureau of investigation. on august 2, 2017, mr. wray was sworn in as the eighth f.b.i. director. he previously served as assistant attorney director -- attorney general at the department of justice in charge of the criminal division. director wray. director wray: thank you, chairman johnson, ranking member mccaskill, members of the committee for the opportunity to talk to you today about the threats here in the homeland and the tremendous work being done by the people at the f.b.i. to confront those challenges. from my earlier years in law enforcement and national security, i already knew how outstanding the men and women of the bureau are, but to see

it i must say over the last few weeks from this position makes me feel even more honored, if that's possible, to be their director. they are mission focused, they are passionate, they are determined to be the very best at protecting the american people in upholding the rule of law. having been away from government for a number of years, some of the changes that i've now seen in the first few weeks upon getting back have struck me in particular. the evolution of the threats, the expertise developed and the capabilities that have been built. changes in technology have dramatically transformed the nature of the threats we face and challenged our ability to confront those threats. in the terrorism arena, my prior experience was primarily with large structured terrorist organizations like al qaeda, and to be clear, we still very much confront threats from large strktured organizations like al qaeda planning

large-scale sophisticated attacks over long periods of time. now added to that list we also face groups like isil who use social media to recruit and spread their propaganda and to inspire people to take to the streets with crude but effective weapons like hatchets and car bombs. these are smaller in scale but greater in volume and these organizations often move from plotting to action in a very, very short period of time with very little planning and using low-tech and widely available attack methods. these terrorists use social media and encryption technology, has made it harder to find the messages of hate and destruction they're spreading and harder to pinpoint who these messages are gaining traction with here in the homeland. the same can be said of domestic extremist movements that collectively pose a steady threat of violence and economic harm to the u.s.

in that instance, primarily through lone offenders. in the cyber arena, the threats are not only increasing in scope and scale, they're also becoming increasingly difficult to investigate. cybercriminals have increased the sophistication of their schemes which are now harder to detect and more resilient. what was once a comparatively minor threat, somebody hacking for fun and bragging rights and trying to prove a point just he could do it has now thrown into full-blown nation state manipulation and a billionaire business. in the counterintelligence arena, foreign governments pose a rising threat to the u.s. and that threat also is more complex and more varied than it has been at anytime in the f.b.i.'s history. historically, as the committee may know, counterintelligence focused on protecting u.s. government secrets from foreign intelligence services. but today, in addition, we face

threats from nation states targeting not just our national security secrets but our ideas and our innovation and we now see threats, not just from traditional intelligence officers, but from less traditional spies posing as business people or students or scientists. all those threats are amplified by the growing challenge that we in the law enforcement community refer to as going dark. it affects the spectrum of our work. the exploitation of encrypted platforms prevent serious challenges to law enforcement's ability to identify, investigate and disrupt threats, whether it's -- and i want to add to that that obviously we all understand whether it's instant messages, text, old-fashioned letters, citizens have the right to communicate with each other without unauthorized government surveillance and free flow of information is critical to democracy. but the benefits of our increasingly digital lives have been accompanied by new dangers

and we have bean forced to wrestle how criminals and terrorist might use advances in technology to their advantage. even with unquestionably lawful authority, the problem is we are flying bind. we need to find thought and quick and effective solutions. the news is not all bad, not by a long shot. there are great strides being made. intelligence is being far better integrated into our mission. the quality of our partnerships, both across agencies, state and local, foreign, are at a whole new level. but while great progress is made, we need to keep improving. i think the changes in technology are one of the primary concerns that we have and i look forward to answering the committee's questions. senator johnson: thank you, director. our final question wns is mr. rasmussen. he's the director of the national counterterrorism center. on december 18, 2014, mr. rasmussen was sworn in as the fifth director of the nctc. he previously served as the nctc's deputy director since

june of 2012. director rasmussen. director rasmussen: good morning, mr. chairman. ranking member mccaskill. i'm pleased to be with my close colleagues and close partners, secretary duke and director wray. as we pass the 16-year mark of 9/11 since earlier this month, the array of terrorist actors we're confronting around the globe is broader, wider and deeper than it has been at anytime since that day. as we sit here today, the disciplined of terrorism prevention, i would argue, is evolving and changing beneath our feet every day as well and requires that we respond with extraordinary agility. i'll just briefly discuss two areas to complement what my colleagues have already said. first, i'll quickly share what we've seen by way of changes or shift in priority in the terrorism landscape since i was sitting before the committee a year ago. second, i'll just say a few words of areas where we could do a better job. so let's begin what's changed

or new since last time last year. we've seen the developments in three principles paled areas. the coalition shrinking isis. the significant uptick in attacks inspired by isis that we've seen against western interest across the globe in the last year as compared to the number of attacks directed by the isis groups from its headquarters in iraq and syria. finally, the third new threat development i'd point to this year is the resurgens of aviation threats. reaching a level of concern that we in the intelligence community have not faced since al qaeda in the arabian peninsula package plot in 2010. since i spoke with this committee last year, isis has lost a number of senior leaders, been expelled from key cities in iraq and syria and suffered other significant defeats in the heart of its so-called caliphate. as eyes is copies with this loss of territory, the group will look to preserve its capabilities by operating as a covert terrorist organization and insurgency. in some way isis is revuting --

reverting to its roots, in the period we saw in 2004 to 2008 when it operated as an insurgency called al qaeda in iraq. however, these territorial losses have unfortunately not transformed into the ability to inspire attacks. while progress has been made in shrinking the size of territory that isis controls, this has not diminished their ability to inspire attacks far beyond the conflict zone. attacks have taken place in laces like the united kingdom, other places in europe. this highlights the diffused nature of the global threat. and the number of arrests around the globe, while that's tastement to really effective and strong intelligence work, isis ability to reach globally is still largely intact. this uptick in attacks is in contrast to we believe wern attacks enabled by the group's headquarters in syria we saw in 2015 and 2016. all of this underscores our belief there is not a direct link between isis' battlefield

position in iraq and sear & the group's capacity to inspire external attacks. it makes clear that a battlefield loss alone is insufficient to mitigate the threat we face from isis. winning on the battlefield in places like mosul and raqqah is necessary but insufficient step in the process of eliminating the isis threat to our interest. as a result, we need to be patient in terms of expecting return on the investment we are making with our campaign against isis. it's simply going to take longer than we would like to translate victory on the battlefield into genuine threat reduction. it's also worth me saying as focused as we are addressing isis, al qaeda has never stopped being a primary counterterrorism territory for the community here in the united states. the various groups have many manked to sustain recruitment, derive sufficient resources to enable their operations. this is a strikingly resilient organization and we are well aware of that. i'll touch quickly now on the third development that's stood out over the last year. the threat to civil aviation. as you are well aware,

terrorists see attacking aviation as a way to garner global media attention and inflict serious economic harm. aviation has taken center stage over the last year as evidence by the australian authority's disruption by terrorists to bring employeeses onboard an aircraft. they have conducted aviation attacks. all of these attacks, both ones that succeeded and ones that failed, demonstrate several things. first, they show the persistent focus of terrorists on targets of western aviation. second, it shows that terrorists are aware of security procedures. they watch what we do and they try to learn from it. third, it's suggested the bad guys have an ability to adapt their tactics in attempt to defeat the airport security measures that we engage in. it's for these reasons that aviation-related threats have long been and will remain at or near the top of the things we worry about. why don't i stop there, mr. chairman? i got words to say about terrorism prevention and our efforts to deal with homegrown extremism here in the united states but i'd rather reserve

that for questions. senator johnson: thank you. thank you for your testimony. i appreciate the attendance here by fellow members. it has been requested we have two rounds which i am happy to accommodate. we will limit questions to five minutes. i would ask the witnesses as well, it's a tried and trude technique of asking a question with two sects remaining. respond but respond quickly. we need to keep this thing going to respect everybody's time. oftentimes in these situations i'll defer questioning. in light of the events in puerto rico, i would like to give secretary duke the opportunity to just kind of describe first of all the challenge, how fema, department has risen to the challenge in houston, florida and what we face in puerto rico. secretary duke: puerto rico has some unique challenges. the capacity of the puerto rican government is severely diminished. both because of hurricane irma, their prior existing financial situation and the devastation

by the direct hit of maria. maria was one shy of being a category five hurricane so the devastation is complete. what we are doing is standing strong with the governor. we are attacking the areas of the diminished capacity. so there is food and water on the island. there is gasoline on the island. what we're focused on today now that search and rescue is very much complete is distribution chains. we have asked defense logistic agency to augment the local national guard and distribution channels that we can get goods and gasoline out more quickly. that's what we're focused on today. the second thing we're focused on is communications. right now we're primarily dependent on satellite phones which is effective but it helps with emergencies but not helping people find their loved ones. so we're increasing the number of satellite phones and we have

at&t on the island now. we're supporting them with getting their people and equipment there. they have agreed they will restore any tower even if it's not their cell phone tower and they are providing services to any person of puerto rico, regardless of their carrier. we're working on the cell phone coverage. the electrical grid is more of a challenge. we are doing the assessment. it is completely devastated in terms of point of delivery, and the distribution system and the whole power system from start to finish is virtually -- virtually gone. so that is going to be a long-term recovery. we're working with the department of energy, the private industry and working on that. so that's where we are there. the governor is still standing strong. we have d.o.d. troops supporting the national guard. national guard providing security. and we are in a full-court press. additionally, we have texas and

florida that were predominantly hit by the first two hurricanes. in texas, last week we were able to sign a housing plan that really is going to bring people back into their communities quickly. it is a type of housing recovery program that has never been done before and we are very proud that texas is with us on that and wants to lead their housing recovery. florida, electrical grid is restored predominantly. key west has challenges. they had mobile homes destroyed and that's going to be a challenge of how we recover that housing situation. do we just restore with new mobile homes or do we try to provide something more resilient for those floridians as they recover? that's a summary. i'm happy to answer your questions as we go forward. senator johnson: just two other questions to kind of clarify. first of all, in my memory, i can't remember three major disasters like this just

back-to-back. you know, houston, florida and now puerto rico. can you give us some sense of the number of federal employees, including fema, that in these f on station three zones? talk about the significance what president trump has done in terms of 100% funding in puerto rico and why that is necessary. secretary duke: we have 10,000 federal employees on site right now. one of the things that president trump has done for both irma and maria is -- and harvey is declare that declaration early. that has allowed our response to get ahead of the disaster. that has been hugely helpful. dditionally in puerto rico, he yesterday gave 100% cost share which means puerto rico does not have to distribute in the first -- contribute in the first 100 days. the electrical industry and others didn't want to go there

unless they were going to get paid and this has allowed industry to move forward. that has been helpful. additionally, i can't -- stop answering that question without thanking the other cabinet members. cabinet has really come together. we have small business administration, h.h.s., department of energy, v.a., labor, everybody has come together with their assets in support of d.h.s. and fema and the governors and their response. senator johnson: thank you, secretary. senator mccaskill. senator mccaskill: well, it's good to hear that brief. i'll look forward to the detailed brief and i know some of my colleagues are also very interested in the specifics on the ground in puerto rico. seems to me we should have known 100% match before the hurricane even hit. clearly from the financial status of the island, they were going to be in no position to make the match. i want to talk about what i

mentioned in my opening statement. i don't think most americans realize that the number of incidents by white supremist, militant, anti-government organizations are almost triple the number of attacks of those who identify with a jihadist movement internationally in this country. can you -- director wray, talk about how many do you have dedicated agents full time to investigating international terrorism versus the type of terrorism that's been responsible for almost as many deaths as the international terrorism, that is the white supremacist, anti-government, militant in this country? director wray: senator, first, let me say -- senator mccaskill: can you turn the microphone on? thank you very much. director wray: let me say first i agree with you that the domestic terrorism threat is a

very, very serious one indeed and something we spend a lot of our time focused on. i don't have sitting here right now the allocation of agents. not that number. what i can tell you on this particular subject is we have about 1,000 open domestic terrorism investigations as we speak. and that over the past 11 to 12 months, i think we had 176 arrests of domestic terrorism subjects during that period of time. so -- and i've now been starting just in my few weeks in the job getting out to some of the field offices and there are significant numbers of agents who are working very, very hard on that subject. so i can assure you that it's a top, top priority for us. senator mccaskill: i would really appreciate if you would provide to the committee for the record some kind of breakdown of the resources that are being allocated in these

various areas. i think that the threat is one that if you ask most americans they would assume that the threat from isis influence is much greater and in reality the facts don't support that and so i would like to get a better sense of the balance of resources in this area, if you would. let's talk about counterterrorism budget cuts. the president's budget caused for elimination of almost half a billion dollars in cuts for counterterrorism. while the same budget says that we need to build a wall that even border patrol agents say is not their top priority for border security. can you talk about the substantial cuts and how that would impact the counterterrorism efforts and security in a way that is possible for you to talk about, either director rasmussen or

any of the three of you? director rasmussen: kind of difficult for me to comment because the intelligence portion of the budget is i don't think exactly what you got your fingers on with the questions you're asking and the terms of the resources i have available to me at the national counterterrorism center, i'm comfortable we have the resources necessary to carry out the various missions we have. particularly some of the extra additional work we are doing in the areas of screening and vetting to support secretary duke and her team at d.h.s. we are a very tiny slice and so i'm not in any way evading your question. the resources i have available has not been significantly reduced and i am in position to carry out my mission. senator mccaskill: secretary duke, i think everybody would agree the viper teams have been very effective as they've worked around the country reducing the viper teams down to eight. are you going to try to advocate to reverse that as we move forward?

i'm hoping the appropriators will. secretary duke: we are looking -- we have to do a risk-based approach and we value the viper teams. they have had a significant mission and we funded those that we could within the constraints of balancing the risks with the demonstrated immeasurable value of the teams. senator mccaskill: thank you, mr. chairman. i finished before five minutes. senator johnson: i hope everybody follows the ranking member's -- senator mccaskill: look at the example i set. senator johnson: senator portman. senator portman: welcome to all three witnesses. ms. duke, you're here for the first time as acting secretary. director wray, you're here for the first time before the committee. we're glad you're still here. we need you. look, this has been a horrible hurricane season and our hearts go out to the victims in the wake of the devastation. three storms that probably makes this the worst hurricane

season we've experienced. and our thanks go out to the first responders and to the volunteers. some from my states. all the states represented here who lent a hand to their fellow citizens. but our citizens today in the virgin islands and in puerto rico i think are in a particularly difficult situation. and i understand that in texas and florida, we also got a tough situation but we have the capability to be able to handle that better at the state level. you talked a little bit what you're starting to do, secretary duke. i guess my question really is about what more can be done, one, by d.o.d.? because as i understand it, and you mentioned distribution, there is gas on the island. yes, there's food and water but it's not getting out to the locations that need it or to many of the locations that need it. and it seems to me that infrastructure is going to have to be provided by the federal government. so what can you tell us about d.o.d. cooperation? you are not just going to need fema folks but you will need bodies and vehicles and other

infrastructure, communications infrastructure, what is d.o.d. doing, what could they do more of? finally, what more can we do? i know will you come to more appropriations later this fall but what can this congress do now? secretary duke: d.o.d. is providing tremendous support. we have 16 ships between d.o.d. and coast guard including mercy ship, a hospital ship. one of the things d.o.d. is doing that's critically important is assessing the ports and the airports. if we can get the ports and the airports to full operation, that's going to be huge. we did -- we were able to reactivate the closed air force base, roosevelt rhodes, so now we are flying our supplies through that airport and have been able to open puerto rico to commercial flights for those that want to come to the united states. so i think what d.o.d. is doing is helping us get the supplies there but also helping us open the access roads. they also are leading the

debris removal which is huge. we still have areas that we can't access by roads. we did send more troops down yesterday, including a general that will be in charge of coordinating on the ground, so we do have a general on site now that i think is going to help speed things about and put decisionmaking on the ground. i think that was a big step forward. in terms of congress, there is funding. we did ask yesterday to hold off congressional visits because of the limited airspace, space between flights and thank you for doing that i know many of you want to get there and see it and we thank you for postponing until at least next week of congressional visit soss we can use every airspace and time for those that survived this terrible event. senator portman: thank you. it's an urgent situation. it is a different response is needed. i'm glad to hear our military resources are being used because i think it's required.

change the subject for a second and talk about fentanyl, really biochem issues. as you know we have an opioid crisis in this country. in fact, you know, more people are dying every day in my state of ohio, your home state and in all of our states than last year. it's not getting better. it's getting worse. more deaths from overdoses from heroin, synthetic heroin like fentanyl and carfentanyl than car accidents. it's the number one death in my state and in our country. by the way, 58% of the deaths in ohio over the last year came from fentanyl. not from heroin. and this fentanyl is coming into our country. by the u.s. mail system. primarily from china. so this is a threat, this is an external threat coming in. i'm frustrated because we can't get our postal service to provide law enforcement, including your people at customs and border protection, information they need to be able to identify these packages and stop this poison from coming into our communities.

i know you are aware of the issue. can you tell us what progress you're making to be able to stop this, and do you support our legislation to stop act, there are a number of members of this committee who are co-sponsors of that legislation? it's very simple. it just says the post office has to provide advanced information to law enforcement to be able to identify these packages and stop this threat. secretary duke: absolutely. i think that the work of this committee has helped. i am meeting with the postmaster general next week. we have gotten visibility into a certain percentage of packages, but it absolutely has to increase. additionally, we're seeing the routing change. so as we address china, the routing is changing to some stops. we're definitely focused on that. and i feel confident the attorney general -- excuse me -- the postmaster general is at the table now. senator portman: well, we'd like your support on this legislation because it needs a change in law to require the post office to do what all private carriers have to do. the traffickers know, as was

said by mr. rasmussen earlier, they know how to take advantage of our weaknesses and this is a weakness right now in our current system. by the way, this product is also being weaponized. so carfentanyl in particular, director wray, i hope you focus on that as well and i have a concern about terrorist groups and state actors using this as a biological weapon, chemical weapon. thank you. mr. johnson. senator johnson: senator lankford. senator lankford: for the testimony you are bringing. ms. duke, thank you for stepping up. you were with general kelly and he ran to another job. thank you for stepping up and be able to take that. i know we have a visit scheduled in my office to go through several of the details. i'll skip through some of those. let me ask you some specific questions first about puerto rico. there was a waiver was requested for the jones act waiver for puerto rico. that was denied. that waiver was given to

houston, was given to florida. obviously the virgin islands, they're waived from the jones act entirely all the time so they constantly have ships coming back and forth. puerto rico in good times thinks that the jones act cost them about $1.5 billion in economic activity a year, but they especially need it now in just getting vessels in. can you help me understand why and where the conversation is on the jones act for puerto rico? secretary duke: first of all, we don't know of fuel shortages on the island of puerto rico. the challenge is getting it distributed. in terms of the jones act waiver, we researched this. i read it in news clips this northern morning. we have no known jones act waiver request. we did receive a congressional letter today. we are double checking to make sure it isn't true. if there are fuel shortages, you know, we are looking at jones act. like you said, we will use it appropriately. there's two issues with puerto rico. one is the potential shortage of carriers with the u.s. flag carrier.

the second is tariffs and other things that make the fuel costs high in puerto rico and that's what we're hearing, too, is that people are suffering from the tariffs. senator lankford: if we could proactively engage in that. it's a week to even get a vessel to them. so the longer it takes to be able to get that waiver done, then vessels can't even start getting their -- that are non-u.s. flagged vessels. that will be helpful. another interesting point we can talk about later on is dealing with fema and the decision about nonprofits. congress years ago said nonprofits were included in disaster relief aid. the administration, previous administrations have defined nonprofits as excluding churches. i'm still trying to get a definition for that often churches are the ones that are the community location for food and everything is distributed from there. but then they can't also get disaster relief. the museum or the library, whatever else around them can. the administration already has the authority to make the decision. congress spoke about it. previous administrations

defines nonprofits everything but a church. synagogue, mosque, church, shouldn't apply. again, we can talk about that later on some other things. i do want to talk to but election security as well and some of the things going on as we deal countering violent extremism and what's happening in destabilizing us. we watched even this weekend the russians and their troll farms and internet folks start hashtagging out take a knee and also hashtagging boycott nfl. they have taken both sides of the argument this weekend and pushing them out from their troll farms as much as they could to just raise the noise level in america and make a big issue seem like a bigger issue as they're trying to push divisiveness in the country. we will see that again in our election time. my question for you is, does d.h.s. -- you have the responsibility sdwrofere see elections -- oversee elections nationwide and work with

states. does d.h.s. have the resources it needs to do onsite assessments for all the states that requested between now and the 2018 elections? secretary duke: we do have the resources to do it. not all states have requested it, and i think there's still an issue with some states on whether they want that federal involvement. we do have the resources. senator lankford: ok. we'll follow-up in greater detail in another conversation. i visited with d.h.s. folks on the design of the border wall in trying to work through the border security for the southern border. several members of this committee were involved in some of those conversations. we are still waiting on details, descriptions, design, cost. the cost per mile of the border wall done 10 years ago was about 3 1/2 million dollars. the initial was was about $20 million per mile. so we're waiting for not only why that dramatic increase in cost, what the final design will look like but also the long-term view of this.

not to just look at the 77 miles as requested currently but where do we go and what order and how do we do tanned some simple things that can be cheaper. for instance, getting rid of the very actively growing cane that's on the river banks where individuals hide drugs and be able to move products into the united states illegally. that cane eradication will be exceptionally important as well. any comments about the future of the wall and where we're going? secretary duke: i am looking at the plan next week and we'll have it to congress shortly after. as i said in my confirmation hearing, the southern border does not include just the wall. it includes infrastructure, securing and other mechanisms. senator lankford: thank you. i'll follow up. senator johnson: senator heitkamp. senator heitkamp: you're working on the northern and southern border strategy. what's the timeline?

secretary duke: we will have the northern border strategy by the end of the of cat dar year. we will have the southern border strategy within the next month. senator heitkamp: that is critical as we go through decisionmaking. cane eradication. mesquite, clearly in arizona d -- it's an evasive species there. easy to hide. needs to be eradicated so we have a better chance of catching border crossers that first mile in. so want to talk about cybersecurity and i don't have a lot of time so i am going to do this quickly. two questions. how do you grade our current vulnerability in this country? a being impenetrateable, f being big trouble. and how do you grade -- all of this for all of you -- how do you grade our current collaboration and coordination across executive branch agencies including d.o.d., and we'll start with you,

secretary? secretary duke: coordination across federal agencies has gotten very high. i would probably give it a b because i never think we're done. and we know the threat is significant. in terms of grades it would depend on the critical infrastructure sector. right now we are focused on energy and critical infrastructure and the attacks on that. that is probably our highest threat right now. because of its importance and the focus on that, i would give that the lowest grade. senator heitkamp: director. director wray: senator, i would agree with secretary duke on the cooperation side, i think there's been dramatic advances and dramatic progress in the wake of a number of other things. much better coordination. so like secretary duke, i tend to be dissatisfied with our

efforts so b-minus, maybe on that front. on the threats, i am still trying to get my arms around them a few weeks into the job so i guess i would call that incomplete. director rasmussen: nothing really to add, senator. senator heitkamp: we always hear there's coordination and then an event happens and it seems like no one really seems to know the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. so i'd be very careful to give too high a mark to coordination because i'm not sure we in the congress understand who's doing what and how it's being coordinated and what we need to do. i mean, we have these one-offs, whether it's election challenges, and then we look at what happened at the s.e.c., what's happened at obviously the equifax penetration and these have all created incredible challenges and one of the things we know about cyber is that it is critical that we engage in a dialogue with the american public about

cybersecurity and cyberhygiene. and so which agency has taken that on to really begin the process? like you see something, say something, who's doing the actual education of the american public on how they can be part of a cybersecurity network? secretary duke: that's our responsibility at homeland security. we have started it. we're working on trying to resensitize americans to that need. there's much more to do. senator heitkamp: i think we're woefully short. i think you ask anyone who has been that person who has been, you know, trying to train their kids on how they can protect themselves, it is incredibly vulnerable because it's as strong as the weakest link. so i'm deeply concerned that we don't really have a handle on what we're doing in cybersecurity and that at the end of the day we'll spend all of our time and our resources

looking at all these other threats and completely miss one of the most serious threats that could be pursuing this country. director wray, obviously very concerned about what's happening in indian country. pretty hard on your predecessor in terms of the role that the f.b.i. plays in reservations in my state. missing women. across the board. i know you and i had a discussion in the book room, you're working on it. i -- back room, you're working on it. in spite of everything else that's going on, personally engage because you are the only cop on the beat for many of my communities who are suffering from record amounts of drug addiction and drug abuse. people are suffering violent crime at much higher rates, and now a continuation of maybe third-party or third-country involvement from law enforcement. so please pay attention to this.

director wray: just a quick response. senator, i haven't forgotten our conversation when we met a few weeks ago. it's something i specifically raised with my leadership team. we do have the safe trails task forces that we're committed to, but i'm well aware in many ways we are the only game in town in that space so i'm looking forward to learning more how we can be effective. senator johnson: senator hassan. health savings account thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member mccaskill. i do have questions about terror threats to our nation that i'd like to discuss with the witnesses but i'd like to address the crisis in puerto rico and our fellow citizens. as a former governor, i know how important those resources are and it is why i'm very concerned to hear from my friend, former governor of puerto rico, alejandro padilla, that relief efforts have failed to make it to those most in

need. he and i served as governors until the end of 2016 and i know him to be a very steady hand amid the challenges his island faces. that's why the email i got from him last night is so concern and i want to read an excerpt of it and would ask unanimous consent for the full email to be entered into the record. senator johnson: without objection. senator hassan: here's what he says. the situation is critical. there is no electricity anywhere on the island and only 40% of customers have running water. hospitals are on the verge of collapse, and many have had to transfer all their patients to other overstrained facilities because they have run out of gas or diesel for their generators. patients are dying in their homes because they cannot fill their prescriptions, do not have access to ice to keep their insulin cool or cannot reach in time a dialysis center that has electricity. there are entire communities that the government has been unable to reach due to widespread landslides and

debris. this is happening in america today. unless we see a dramatic increase in assistance on personnel reaching the island soon, many thousands could die. so secretary duke, i'd like to ask you to respond to governor garcia's email and also in your response talk to us about what kind of planning about assets being deployed to puerto rico was made before the storm hit. we knew the storm was coming. we knew it was glanced by irma and not hit as badly as irma but here we are with a really dire situation and my friend, the former governor, says we need the army and the national guard deployed throughout the island now, today. this cannot wait another day. despite federal agencies coordinating in san juan, there is very limited presence of military personnel assisting people in the streets and throughout our communities.

secretary. secretary duke: the president and vice president talked with the governor yesterday and that was about 1:00 and he had no unmet needs at that point. so i will follow-up with him again, but i have offered to him to reach out to me directly in addition to our fema administrator. there is challenges in getting to the outer parts of the island because the debris removal, the landslides are so strong. what we have done that's significant in addressing those specific concerns are we're using the d.o.d. to how help with distribution. that's generally something the commonwealth would do itself. we have heard stories of shortages. we have also heard stories of extortion, and so to avoid that and make sure the critical resources get to where they need to, we are using d.o.d. for that as of yesterday afternoon. senator hassan: well, thank you for that response. i have to tell you that i know others have been in contact with the current governor of

puerto rico as well and they are not hearing that all their needs have been met. and so we have american lives at stake here, and i would urge you and the department to do everything you can and i am concerned about why there weren't more assets on their way to puerto rico as soon as the storm hit. we're almost a week out now. secretary duke: absolutely. and we have been airdropping. . we'll never stop and we'll never be satisfied. i agree with you, senator. senator hassan: thank you. i have a number of questions on homeland security, but given my time i'll yield back the remainder and wait for the second round. thank you. chairman johnson: thank you, senator. senator peters. senator peters: thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you to our witnesses for being here today. i think that some actions by the administration such as the travel ban as well as some very divisive rhetoric that we have

heard coming out of the administration has consequences. sometimes very significant consequences. beginning at the end of last year we have seen a spike of anti-muslim incidents in my home state in michigan. we have seen a rash of bomb threats against jewish community centers in michigan as well. as well as across the country. that's why my colleague on this committee, senator portman, and i wrote a letter together calling for the d.h.s. and d.o.j. to address these incidents and provide communities with the resources that they need to deal with these incidents. the letter was signed by all 100 senators, every one of the colleagues of the senate believed this is something we have to address. make no mistake, i think some of the darkest elements in our society have become emboldened and we need to look no further than the white supremacy protests in char lotsville, as well as other activities across

the country to bring this to our attention. i want to follow up on a question by ranking member ccaskill to mr. wray wray. how many agents we have related to domestic terrorism to international. what are the resources, what are your budgets? i'll start with you secretary duke. what is the dugget in your department for domestic terrorism versus international terrorism? secretary duke: we have no specific delineation in the budget for domestic terrorism versus international. we do believe that homegrown violent extremists who are persons in this country with an international nexus or motivation are our biggest threat, but we're looking at both the homegrown and domestic terrorists. but no specific delineation. director wray: we don't have in our budget specific allocations but agents and other resources

to counter terrorism. we tend to move agents and other seamlessly between squads, depending on the particular time period, the particular field office, epending on the threat seamlesn assessment in that community. senator peters: in response to senator mccaskill's question, can you provide that will information to us? director wray: let me see what information we can provide. assessment in senator peters: mr. rasmussen. director rasmussen: the legislation that corrected nctc made clear we were not to make it a direction. senator peters: we currently do not have any domestic terrorism legislation or statute, do you think this legislation may be something we should consider? director wray? director wray: i'm aware of ongoing discussions about the possibility of a domestic terrorism statute as you

directly note there is not domestic terrorism crime as such. we in the f.b.i. refer to domestic terrorism as a category but it's more of a way in which we allocate which agents, which squad's going to work on it. i will say in the domestic terrorism context just like the international terrorism context we take very much the approach that we're going to use all the tools at our disposal. a lot of domestic terrorism cases that we bring we're able to charge under gun charges, explosive charges, all manner of other crimes. we also work a lot with state and local law enforcement who can sometimes bring very straightforward, easy to make cases, homicide cases, things like that. so we have a lot of tools. we can always use more. it's something that i'm looking forward to learning more about. senator peters: secretary duke. secretary duke: we take both seriously. oftentimes when we encounter an act of violence, we don't know

if it's internationally motivated or domestically motivated. so we take every threat and every act of terrorism, every act of violence with the motivation very seriously. they have a commonality in hate. it's just where their motivation comes from. and international terrorist organization or internally. it is as was correctly said the occurrences are stronger. we're trying to do -- both from a law enforcement through the f.b.i., but also through education programs to try to help communities be able to respond to it and be able to counter it. senator peters: thank you. chairman johnson: you ready? senator carper. how's it going.

i'm glad you're here. thank you. thanks for your service. today. joining us i don't know -- my questions it probably hasn't been although it's been asked many times. ms. duke i'll ask for you to start off. the president has indicated a willingness to find common round on legislation involving legalizing the status of daca students in this country. in doing terested some more work onboarder security. he has had an ongoing interest. i have had the opportunity to travel to the border with some of my colleagues, a number of my colleagues, with your predecessor, secretary, now the president's chief of staff, with former secretary johnson and

others. i believe there are someplaces where a wall makes sense, but if you think about the -- all the distance between ocean and the gulf of mexico, it doesn't make sense in a whole lot of places. i think you know that. there are places where fences make a lot of sense. where boats make sense. there are places where boat ramps make sense. there's a fair amount of use of helicopters, fixed wing aircraft, drones tethered to der ridgibles -- der ridgeables. stationier towers. mobile towers. i used to be a naval flight officer for many years. we did mostly -- we did surveillance, we also had occasion to do search and

rescue. we put 13 guys in an ampe, fixed wing, couple thousand feet off the water with biknock cue lars look for a life raft -- binoculars. to look binoculars. to look for a life raft. so the idea putting fixed wing, helicopters, or drones, or owers without really sophisticated surveillance technology to enable us to see at night during bad weather and for long distances and to mexico, if we don't have the surveillance technology, it doesn't make much sense. i have seen places on the border where horses make sense. you have really high grass and get the border patrol agents up on a horse and actually do their job sophisticated surveillance bett places where intelligence, better intelligence, information sharing makes sense. the other thing that we have heard about here in a number of hearings is the needle in a haystack, it's hard to find those needles. you can make the needles bigger

or if you have the right kind of surveillance equipment, you can actually make the needles bigger. but it's also helpful if you make the haystack smaller. that might be by making sure that fewer people come, fewer need to flee to come to our country, that would make the haystack smaller. the last administration has been gotten bipartisan support in the congress to actually address a root causes of folks in honduras, guatemala, salvador trying to get out of their murder and ee the mayhem that threatens their lives and safety too often. the idea to sort of find out what works, do something that's worked in the past, plan colombia has transformed murder mayhem that threatens their lives and safety too often. colombia. they now do most of the work. we have helped. i like to say it's like home depot, can you do it, we can help. that's a menu of options to help secure our borders. i just want you to direct some

of those -- do niff those make sense to you? as acting secretary? secretary duke: they all make sense, to be honest, senator carper. we're looking at not only in between the points of entry, but at the points of entry through information sharing and credentialing. our goal is to keep bad people out and keep the illicit movement of goods so we're not funding transnational criminal organizations. that's the goal. how that happens we're open to doing that. i offered to talk about reform bills with any member and let you know how operationally we think it would play out. i reaffirm that offer. in terms of the northern triangle and mexico, i am in dialogue with all of them and working through some international banks to also look at that. how can we make it so people want to stay in their countries, which is the ultimate goal. those discussions are ongoing. we had a meeting this week and

looking at setting up a forum. all of them. senator carper: any quick comments, mr. wray? p comments before my time has expired, but briefly. director wray: i would share secretary duke's view we would have to have a multidisciplinary approach which i think is built into your question. director rasmussen: the responsibilities of the spence community is to provide the best possible service to those who actually carry out the screening and vetting of individuals trying to come into the country. we take that responsibility very seriously. we have made business process improvements in how we do that, there is more work to be done for sure. chairman johnson: senator harris senator harris: secretary duke, in response to senator lankford's question, you said you were not aware of any requests. you read it in the clips this morning. i'm informed that there have been at least two requests, one from eight house members led by

congressman velazquez and another by senator mccain. so i'm troubled because if you are unaware of those requests, it suggests that there is not a sufficient priority for puerto rico in your agency. is there someone under you other than the fema director who is responsible to reporting directly to you the status of your agency's work in pork more? if so can you give me the name of that person? secretary duke: we have the request from congress. if i misspoke i apologize. we have the letters from congress, those go to customs and border protection. we do not have any requests from industry which is where they typically come from. senator hairis: is there a person under you who is responsible for reporting directly to you about the status of your agency's work in puerto rico in addition to the fema director? secretary duke: no. senator hairis: can you put somebody in in place related to work in puerto rico? secretary duke: yes. senator hairis: and follow up.

the speaker pro tempore: doip yes. senator hairis: on the issue senator mccaskill raised, i was roubled to hear director wray, thankfully you are on top of it, your agency has 1,000 open investigates on dressic terrorism. 176 arrests for domestic terrorism. the f.b.i. and d.h.s. issued a joint intelligence bulletin in may of this year where you indicated, quote, it will likely -- white supremist extremists will likely continue to pose a threat of lethal violence over the next year. mr. chairman, i am requesting that we open an investigation. a congressional investigation into this issue. according to the joint bulletin, the f.b.i. and d.h.s. define white supremist extremists as individuals who seek wholly or in part through unlawful acts of force or violence to support their beliefs in the intellectual and moral

superiority of the white race over other races. committee hat this has done a great job conducting congressional investigations when we have found that there are americans who are at risk of harm and committee has done a great job conductings matter i would ask we do a similar investigation. chairman johnson: request noted. senator hairis: on the issue of dak -- senator hairis: on the issue of daca -- senator harris: on the the of daca, in making decision to rescind daca you indicated that recipients will in some period of time the order to apply. i'm told by folks working on the ground that they have seen a slowdown in daca recipients reapplying. are you prepared to extend the amount of time that they in order will have? secretary duke: we have had no requests.

i did talk to one senator about a potential need for an extension, but we have had no indication from daca recipients that they are having trouble. we did check the system to make sure it is easy system to reapply, and they do not have to reproduce their documents. senator harris: have you convened or had a meeting at all or input from the community folks who are working on the ground to get information from them? if not, i request that you do that so you can get a complete picture of what is actually happening on the ground. i will tell you from the perspective of california these young people are terrified. they are terrified. they were told by your agency that if they submitted this comprehensive information about their background and status to apply for daca that that information would not be shared with i.c.e. i have asked you, i asked the former secretary, are you willing to keep america's promise to these young people and not share their information

with i.c.e.? can you answer that question formally. it has not been answered the many times i asked. secretary duke: i think -- i can't unequivocally promise that, no. senator harris: so we will not keep our promise to these children and young people? secretary duke: i am not familiar with the promise made to these children, but i do know having them on two-year nonrenewable suspensions is not the right answer and i look forward to working with the congress to come up with weighter solution. senator harris: i will submit to the record and give awe copive document where the united states told these young people when they apply for daca status we would not share their information with i.c.e. you have not seen this document? secretary duke: i have not. senator harris: i will give a copy to you. i have it here. i will give you a coppy. i think i presented it to you. certainly the person that -- secretary duke: will i get you an answer.

senator harris: i would like that answer before the end of the week. you also indicated when you last testified before us that in terms of the seven new enforcement priorities that they were in descending level of priority. following your testimony before this committee, the former secretary said that there was no priority in terms of that list. so which is the policy of your agency? and how have you instructed the people on the ground about what e the enforcement priorities of your of your agency? secretary duke: our enforcement priorities, however an i.c.e. agent is not restricted from apprehending anyone who is in violation of law. senator harris: there are seven enforcement priorities, have you instructed agents on the ground which are the highest versus the lowest given with all agencies, certainly yours, you have limited rye sources? secretary duke: yes. senator harris: can you give that information to me, please? secretary duke: yes.

senator harris: now. ? secretary duke: we have the d.h.s. policy and then the i.c.e.policy. they all say that these are the priorities for enforcement. if there is any targeted enforcement, they are against the priorities. however, if a i.c.e. agent encounters someone that isn't a priority but is still an illegal immigrant they would be apprehended also using the discretion of the i.c.e. agent. senator harris: i see my time is up. chairman johnson: real quick following up on your request in terms of investigation on white supremacists and domestic terrorists. prior th director wray to this hearing and just con firmed this. you said you had about 1,000 active investigations on basically white supremacists, domestic terrorists, about 1,000

isis related. confirm that was accurate. also, do you take the threat of white firmed this. you said you had about 1,000 active investigations on basically white supremacist ter violent extremist any less seriously than you do those perpetrated by -- potentially by isis? director wray: no, we do not. we take both of them very, very seriously. our focus is on violence and threats of violence against the people of this country. and that's our concern. it's not ideology or anything else. it's the danger and violence and threat towards the people in this country. on the number, the other part of your question, it is also true we have about 1,000 open isis related investigations at this time as well. we're very busy. chairman johnson: except for the difference in the nexus to foreign fighters and the international connection there, is there any difference in your investigation techniques, your prosecution techniques, what you charge white supremacist violent extremists with isis related violent extremists? is there any difference? director wray: most ways they are similar. probably the biggest difference

is the one that senator peters elicited which is there is not a domestic terrorism offense as such. like there is a material support to foreign terrorism provision. of course there are certain tools, investigative tools, like fisa, only available for foreign offenses. chairman johnson: senator hoeven . senator hoeven: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank all the witnesses for being here. start with secretary duke. in your testimony you notified -- excuse me, you noted that d.h.s. lacks authority to counter threats from unmanned ariel systems n my state we're very -- aerial system. in my state we're very involved with those systems using them on the border. so talk to me about -- can you describe in some greater detail the domestic threat of unmanned aircraft and what authorities have, what authorities

you should have, and what we can do. secretary duke: we're seeing an increase use of have, what auths you drones. they could be for surveillance. they could be for bringing illicit materials. they could be for acting violence. what we lack are some of the signals of the ability to interdict, if you will, the signals so that we can try to determine if this is a friendly or foe type drone. we're not the only ones lacking that ability. i think because it's a new threat the specific authorities notonitor these drones does exist generally. senator hoeven: would it be possible for you to give me some direction in terms of what would be helpful to you to understand how you could better try to monitor those drones, again with reasonable protections for civil liberties and those kind of things, but maybe some information that you could provide us in determining how we

could craft authorities that might be helpful in that regard. are you talking primarily on the border, or are you talking other locations as well? secretary duke: it could be other locations as well. they would be primarily in the border. for us. other agencies have different types of problems, but we would be looking primarily from the border states. senator hoeven: director wray, same kind of question to you. what are you doing in this area? again we have a test site where we're developing these capabilities and this may be something we could work on. f.b.i.'s perspective could you address unmanned drones and the threat they present. director wray: senator, i welcome the question. it is a topic we have been f.b. could you address unmanned drones and discussing a lot lately. i think we do know that terrorist organizations have an interest in using drones. we have seen that overseas already with some growing frequency. i think the expectation is it's coming here.

i think they are relatively easy to aguirre, relatively easy to operate, and quite difficult to disrupt and monitor. that's something i would welcome working with the congress as well as with the other agencies to try to figure out a solution. senator hoeven: do you have a group of any kind that's working on thisish shy right now? what -- on this issue right now? what are you doing on this? director rasmussen: starting with the intelligence that director wray talked about where we saw isis and other groups using these capabilities overseas on the battlefield in iraq and syria, we brought the community of intelligence professionals together in washington to try to present a clear picture that we can share with state and local partners around the country and begin to explain the tactics and techniques individuals might use to bring harm to communities. that could be dropping small explosives, dispursal of toxins.

sharing that information is a first step. the next step is thinking about true defensive measures we employ as a federal government or recommend to state and local governments they could employ at managal costs. that's a -- manageable costs. that's under way. of experts ommunity that's emerged inside the federal government who has focused on this full-time. two years ago this was not a problem. a year oosetwagmeerging problem. now it's a real problem. we're quickly trying to up our game. senator hoeven: i might ask who is take the lead? are you taking the lead in that effort? is there some coordinating mechanism across law enforcement agencies to develop a strategy and implement it? director rasmussen: i don't know we designated a single agency lead. we're trying to simply right now catalog who all has capability to bring to bear against the problem. it won't just be the law enforcement community. it will be the broader community involved with aviation that will have equities here as well. what aim talking about is trying to do a better job of convening everybody in the federal

government who has a stake in this and capability to bring to bear. that work is under way. senator hofeon: are you doing that? director rasmussen: i am participating in that. senator hoeven: who would be the lead? director rasmussen: ill get you an answer on that. i don't know who is the true bellybutton on this. senator hoeven: i'm trying to find out who you think would be a lead person for us to interface with to do this in the best way. it's just getting your recommendation. not trying to trip you up or indicate you haven't done something. to find out what you-all think would be the best place to get a lead. director rasmussen: i'll certainly come back with a more thoughtful answer where the best place to bug plug in the to fin you-all think would be the best place to get a lead. lead.or rasmussen:

senator hoeven: any other thoughts? secretary duke: we started talking about this with the national and homeland security council. this is lead. senator hoeven: any other thoughts? secretary duke: we started talking about this with the national and homeland security council. this is an interagency process that. would be the best process to come up with a federal position. senator lead. senator hoeven: any other thoughts? secretary duke: we started talking about this with the national and homeland security council. this is an interagency process that. would be the best process to come up with a fed questions. they are all going to go to ms. duke. don't hold that against me. elaine, during the omnibus, 2017 omnibus, we heard language in that to require a report to be sent back to congress by august 4 talking about the most effective solutions for the southern border. we have yet to receive that. about all do you know that? number one. number two, can you give me a timeline when it will be here? funding season actually will be on it. we may be dealing with that funding bill next week. it's really important we know that. as lamar alexander said, we're not going to cut you a blank check. we now need to note plan. secretary duke: i do know about it. i am supposed to receive it next week and earlier i said within

the next month. if you have any specific needs as you deal with the funding dill bill, we can work with you on that. senator tester: i'm glad you brought that up. it's supposed to be a comprehensive report. that means you are going to look for the most cost-effective ways to make that southern border secure. that means that the politics of a wall should not be in the picture. it should be about what you guys believe are the best options to make that border secure. we shouldn't be backing in anything. we should be looking ford and giving us ideas on -- forward and giving us ideas on what you want and the potential cost. that's what i need. not on 80 miles but on the border. are we on the same page? secretary duke: yes. what the border patrol needs to secure the border. senator tester: i think it's critically important. i don't think there's anybody in congress that doesn't want secure borders. the last proposal that came in

on an informal meeting was $24 million a mile for a wall. i am one that -- don't think the wall is the most effective way. we have technology out there. doesn't have stranded costs of land on the other side of a potential wall. and by the way you can tweak technology to make it work more and more. i just hope we get a good comprehensive look on what's needed. you guys are the pros. the folks on the ground. we need an unbiased political opinion what's best for this country. it's a lot of doe. -- dough. thank you for that. earlier this year the president's budget sought to eliminate t.s.a. law enforcement in our airports. over 300 nationwide. i do not understand what went into that. i'm certainly not blaming you crafted long before you were in the position. but airports large and small would have fewer people on the ground and it would burden airports at the local -- with an unfunded mandate, which by the way i do not believe they have

the resources to be able to fund. we have seen plenty of tragedies emanated from airports around the world and in this country. what's your position on this? do you believe -- i hope -- you know what answer i want, but i want to know what's in your head. do you believe that funding t.s.a. and our airports is a ? itical, critical component what's been your conversation with the folks -- i know you are acting, but above you on this issue? secretary duke: d.h.s.'s position is that we try to look at what expenditure of funds brings the most value to aviation security. some of the reductions that were put in the budget like having someone posted at the exit, those things, behavioral recognition as a stand alone function were ones we either

don't have evidence that they are successful or that we feel lower risk than other types of protection. we believe in t.s.a. we have to be more efficient. we're looking at technologies to do that so it's not lower risk other types just human intensive. it is ongoing process and we have to continue to refine it. senator tester: i appreciate that. the reimbursement program is really critical. by the way, i can't thank you enough to look where you get the most bang for the buck. but security costs money. i think you would agree. we have to figure out how to do it bert. i think this could be the epitome of shooting one's self in the foot. thank you very much. thank you for your service. christopher, next time around we'll do some good stuff. same thing when you mr. rasmussen. thank you voich. chairman johnson: senator daines. senator daines: cyberterrorism is an emerging threat that's become all too real in montana. two weeks ago the columbia falls

school district received cyberthreats promising harm and demanding ransom. this forced the closure of more than 30 schools across multiple school districts, affects over 15,000 montana children. it's unprecedented. we have not seen that before. in my home state of montana. the culprit's been identified as the dark overlord, an overseas criminal organization. mr. wray, are you aware of the cyberthreats and is the f.b.i. investigating? senator.wray: yes, we're actively involved in the matter you are referring to in montana. i want to be careful not to discuss an ongoing investigation, but i will tell you that i could not senator. we're agree more that this concept of ransom ware, cyberterrorism, the various variants of it that are example t, i think the

in your state illustrates that it's everywhere now. it's example in your state illustrates that it's everywhere now. it's affecting -- no longer just ransom ware to a big fortune 500 company. it's hospitals. it's schools in your case. so it's a threat that is growing. there's a lot -- we have a lot of matters ongoing related to it. in some cases we have indict the ransom ware authors. in other cases we have what's called sink holed them, redirect them into the hands of law enforcement. but make no mistake, it is a very serious threat. senator daines: it's an active investigation and are you limited in providing details. looking back at the big picture, what is the f.b.i. doing to attribute these cybercrimes and help cri bring these criminals to justice? director wray: there are a variety of technological things we can do. we're also working with partners to try to exchange information o help identify telltale signs

that may help us link back to particular organizations. one of the things we're seeing more and more in this area as much as any other is how this stuff transcends boundaries. some of the same organizations are targeting victims in other countries as well. we're really working more and more with our partners to see if we can have their two plus our two to get more than four. to get five and six. so that we can really deal with these otherwise very elusive foes. senator daines: ms. duke, you mentioned general kelly in his short time at the helm drove down illegal immigration and boosted department morale. i think one of the underreported stories in this country is what you have seen in terms of the apprehensions and decline of crossings coming across our southwest border. general kelly sat where you are sitting here a while back and shared some of these remarkable, remarkable improvements,

quantifiable reductions of 60%, 70%. and i have confidence that you will continue in that traject torery. -- trajectory. , theyrecrept cyberthreats are shocked, nervous, it's at the core of who we're, their children. as you mentioned in your testimony, americans will not be intimidated or coerced. you also briefly are looking to identify and -- those who exploit cyberspace. secretary duke: if i could quickly, we went up six points in the employee survey this year also. that was another good news story. senator daines: they greatly respect and appreciate enenforcement of the law and law and oshed. -- order. secretary duke: we're looking a lot with the critical infrastructure. spiber security has to start with those that own the systems.

what we're working on is through our monitoring and our diagnostics, protecting not only the federal system but alerting and keeping the critical infrastructure, the private sector, aware of threats that might come out. so we do information, those types of things. recently one of the more severe actions was a binding operation directive, specifically gnificant threat in terms of software. it depends on the situation. we work closely, we sit with the f.b.i. so there is a seamless from just countering it as just a bug to it being a criminal activity. senator daines: thank you. chairman johnson: senator daines,.

director rasmussen, prior to your testimony c.i.a. director brennan testified before the senate intelligence committee and his basic quote on isis is that all our efforts have not reduced the group's terrorism capability and global reach. isis remains a formidable and largely cohesive enemy. a month or two later, in your testimony before this committee, you said despite this progress, isis' ability to carry out terrorist attacks in syria, iraq, and abroad is not be significantly diminished. terrorist nked activities show its global reach . to fair phrase your testimony today, you basically said the capacity -- capability of isis has not been mitigated. they remain resilient. is that your feeling? even though we're making great gains, and we have been. we're denying that territory, destroying that caliphate, is there a global -- is their

global rich undiminished? director rasmussen: their global reach remains profound. one thing i wanted to this year not on the table last year. we have seen a reduction in the ability of isis to be able to actually direct and command and control attacks from their safe haven in iraq and syria. that's the good news. the bad news is they have shown an expanded ability to be able to inspire individuals to take the kinds of action that is we have seen in places across europe and potentially even inside the homeland here. there is a good news-bad news element to that. obviously attacks driven by an organization under a command and control structure involving all the resources of that organization can be larger and more complex and lethal. minimize the lethality that comes with a lone individual who may have acquired a firearm, developed an explosive device. don't want to overstate the degree minimize the lethality that comes with a lone

individual to which our threat condition is significantly mitigated by having these inspired plots as opposed to these directed plots. but the underflying point in my testimony was, it's going to take a longer period of time than we would like to mitigate the threat condition posed by isis. battlefield success is necessary. it is coming. it is happening. it just isn't going to produce the results we want from a threat perspective as quickly as we would like. chairman johnson: also last year director comey testified they all die on the all die on the battlefield in syria and iraq. there will be a diaspora, some time in the next two or three years unlike we have ever seen before. about a month or so ago you have a different assessment on that. can you talk about that? are we not seeing that spreading? director rasmussen: i think we have come up a more nuanced assessment based on what we have seen with data over the past couple years. that is more of these individuals who have gone to fight in iraq and syria are deciding to stay in the conflict zone to fight and ultimately in

cases die fighting to preserve their self-declared caliphate. what we expected when we saw that inflow, large inflow of foreign fighters was some point to deal with large of outflow. that outflow is coming. it is in some ways already happening, but it is not nearly as large in volume as perhaps we anticipated. that's a good thing that we're not going to have to deal with thousands and thousands of foreign fighters. i would say, though, quality matters. quality cases die fighting to preserve their self-dec matters more than quantity. the wrong set of individuals who escape from the conflict zone in iraq and syria, if they have particularly specialized set of skills or particularly full roller decks, or connections in europe or potentially here in the united states they could pose a significant threat to us. but volume not what we expected. chairman johnson: and safe havens. we have seen them move to libya, afghanistan where again they have safe havens? director rasmussen: in some cases, yes. but again not in large, large volumes.

but there are other conflict flict zones where some of these fighters are looking to move. chairman johnson: director wray. director wray: i would add one related point. we're starting to see. so people we previously thought would have traveled to fight over there being encouraged because of the way things are going on the battlefield to stay put in their respective countries. it's a variation what director comey was referring to. chairman johnson: in my office earlier we were talking about ow our priority is cybersecurity, critical infrastructure. we talked about cybersecurity almost being above everything else. it's infiltrating and fueling all these other threats. the other thing we talked about, this is a concern, too, because that cybercapability, internet connecting everybody for good and will. talk about the ill. the cooperation between terrorist organizations, drug cartels, transnational criminal organizations, can you just

describe how we're seeing that witch's brew being developed because of the internet? director wray: i think what we're seeing, mr. chairman, is a blurring between different kinds of threats. we're in the counterintelligence arena nation states enlisting the help of hackers for hire, for example. we're seeing transnational criminal organizations veering more into what would previously have been thought of as cybercrime. and throughout all the different types of threats we're facing, because more and more of it is online, encrypted platforms, etc., that the modality of threat is changing. chairman johnson: thank you. senator mccaskill. senator mccaskill: there has -- we used to have a joke about the mtbe -- f.b.i. when i was at the d.a. in kansas city. that was if you wanted information out of them, you better make sure you had

something they needed because sometimes it was very difficult to open up the lines of communication, even among everyone who is doing the same work. when i read the inspector's in ral reports about -- reviewed the ability of the intelligence community, d.h.s., and department of justice in terms of how well they are sharing information, and really reviewed the ability of the intelligence community, d.h.s., indicted all three parts of our government that is responsible for going after counterterrorism, that you are not doing a very good job of sharing information. i understand the nature of this problem because you want to hold on to stuff you don't want people to know that could misuse it or leak it. but i think it's really important, we have been talking about sharing information since the fires were still burning in those twin towers.

and how we're going to do it better and more effectively. this isn't even the age old problem of local versus federal. this is federal to federal. can you address what the three of you are doing right now to look at the recommendation made by these inspectors general from your three -- the three parts of the government that should be working together hand in hand? director wray: i'll go first. so, senator, i would say first as to the inspector general somebody i have known and worked with for a long time. hi a one-on-one meeting with him earl -- i had a one-on-one meeting with him early to learn what issues i needed to be focused on. m continuing to try to evaluate that recommendation as well as a number of others. i will say on the information sharing front that evaluate that to me as somebody who is in government, on 9/11, around for all the

discussion of information sharing that you are referring to, that while we clearly have a long way to go, i have a little bit of the perspective of having gone and come back and will i tell you it is so much better now than it was before. it's light years. walking around, going into field offices, seeing people from d.h.s. co-located with people from the fibfifpblet people from the c.i.a. co-located with the f.b.i. every meeting all my folks talk about is the great relationships they now have with this agency and that. can we get better? absolutely. i do want to reassure you that great, great progress has been made in front. senator mccaskill: terrific. do we have a specific plan on implementing the recommendations? second duke. secretary duke: we're focused -- there has artificially -- i agree with director wray it's improved. there was an artificial separation between law enforcement and the intelligence communities that we have had to overcome. one of the major areas, we're

very close to overcoming is on vetting. we have come up with a model that should be finalized very soon that will allow absolute, clear sharing of information when it comes to vetting of persons, which is one of the most important areas to us. that's what we have been focused on. nator mccaskill: i have been worried about how long it's taken us to notify the states about the potential efforts to scan voter registration files in their states. um' even more concerned once i real-dirnl' even more concerned once i realized that this had worried about how long it's occurred. the next day there was another call back that said it didn't. i assume you all agree we're still at risk. to speak up if you disagree, we're still at risk from russia trying to interfere in our elections and election processes, and if you all do agree with that, what is our strategy going forward?

how are we going to do what needs to be done to notify the american public, if this is going on, and prevent it from actually happening in all of these various ways that russia played around in our democracy? they don't even understand what a democracy is in russia. it's pretty nervy for them to do this, try to break the backbone of democracy. they are doing it in a variety of ways. i just want to make sure that you all are preparing for this next year and have a plan. secretary duke: in terms of the notification, we notified the states back when the -- intrusion occurred. this was what we learned from that and what we're crafting as that. we notified the system's owners. that didn't necessarily notify the right senior officials that need to take action. so that is corrected. and i know that our counterparts here are working on the

identification and attribution pieces. senator mccaskill: you ready for next year? chairman johnson: senator, we're spending an enormous -- director wray: senator we're spending enormous amount of time and focusing on the upcoming elections. we're collecting more intelligence. one of the things we know is that the russians and other state actors are trying to influence other elections in other countries as well. that's one of the places where those partnerships have become so important because we can exchange information about trade craft methods, capabilities. we're also in the f.b.i. looking at this as a multidisciplinary effort not just across agencies but even within the f.b.i. our counterintelligence and our cyberpeople are working together on it. those are a few examples. senator mccaskill: i know i'm over time. if you need, for the record, one more. is somebody looking at the dark money going into these political campaigns?

we have the ability of people to give money and never be identified publicly to influence campaigns. millions and millions of dollars. is somebody at the f.b.i. going through all of these so-called super p.a.c.s that can take money without attribution to the public and seeing where the money is coming from? director wray: let me see if there is something i can provide you in writing after the hearing. senator mccaskill: the notion that nobody in public every gets to know where this money is coming from, that is like tailor-made for russia. that's where the majority of the money something spent on our elections as a result of citizens united. chairman johnson: senator lankford. senator lankford: director ray -- director wray, comes off the website. hate is not a crime anti-he of protecting ul

freedom of speech and other civil lib-u liberties. i hear a lot about hate groups now. we always talked about hate crimes. so what i'm trying to figure out is the f.b.i. maintaining a list of hate groups that are under greater scrutiny? if so how is that list developed? director wray: senator, we do a couple different things. our focus is -- we don't track movements or ideologies or groups that have specific beliefs. -- ocus on situations where from the terrorism angle, there are two different pieces, domestic terrorism angle and a hate crime angle. we do both. we focus on the threat of violence. and so there has to be proper ed case for us to -- predication for us to start. we have a history we try to be sensitive to about not investigating people for their beliefs. senator lankford: that's protected in the united states.

whatever belief you you have even wrong, that's appropriate. does the f.b.i. keep lafse hate groups? or do you outsource that to some other group. if i called the f.b.i. who said who is on the list of hate groups, would there be a list? director wray: i would say we have networks of people working together. then we have -- that's groups in that sense. i don't know we would call them hate groups. then we also have certain -- i think we have nine designated movements that we use as sort of identifiers for particular types of -- just a way -- senator lankford: it's a list the f.b.i. created. no outside group identifiers for particular types of -- just a way created it. director wray: yes. senator lankford: ms. duke, let me ask you about entry-exit visas. the report came out in may listing out people who have overstayed their visa. from last year. we have 600,000 people in the country that have overstayed a visa, and we don't know where they are.

let me ask you a question from the 9/11 commission, something that's a decade and a half in the making here. there is a requirement to put in place entry-exit visa verification. if they come into the country we know who they are. when they are leaving we should be able to track when they leave. if they don't leave to find them, figure out why they are here. how is that doing going? there is a pilot program under way. i want to know how that's advancing. secretary duke: the pilot program that uses photos and biometrics is doing very well. our next phase which we're implementing now is integrating it into t.s.a. it was only being used by c.b.p. to date that is the way we intend to progress. the pilot has proved itself successful so far in limited application. senator lankford: full rollout? secretary duke: turf get back to you. senator lankford: that would be helpful. to get a feeling when we're reeling out. this has been a request for a very long time of congress. i know you are walking into this and trying to help finish a

project that is ongoing. one that is exceptionally important and continues to grow in importance. will he me ask you about election again. i asked you before -- let me ask you about election again. i asked you before for any state assessment of the you felt like it tate that wants to get you are prepared to do t i will tell you i have had this conversation before with d.h.s. folks and their statement was, if we had more than just a few states ask us, we're it you are prepared to do t i will not ou i have personnel ready to be go help them in time for the 2018 elections. what i would like to do is have a longer conversation with you to see what you are going to need to be able to be at that point. it's been my understanding that d.h.s. is currently not prepared fulfill the requests as they are coming in. maybe requests are not there yet. but if 10 states made the request at the same time, we couldn't make it in time for the 2018 election. we have a lot more than 10 states that may make that request and try to figure out how we can get you ready for that.

the other one is trying to get states. what's interesting is your perception. where states are right now and understanding the risk. as the notifications have gone back out again to individuals. thank you for correcting who gets notified in states. that does make a difference. getting the message out. do states understand the significance of the cyberthreats they face? on their network, voter data list, from the equipment that there. are they prepared to do an audit? again i'm not asking for the -- to take over the state elections, but are they prepared to do an audit where they can verify with paper and electronic to audit after the election whether the machines have been hacked? secretary duke: we have seen some more trfment there still is people i think artificially delineating between voter and election. so i would like to see more sense of urgency, but the cyberthreats are at the forefront of us every day.

senator lankford: if they get into a voter database and they deplete people or add, you lose the integrity of the election and people lose trust because they show up and they are not registered to vote and used and so i would like to see to be, suddenly they are gone from a list because someone reached in and changed it. that does affect, again, just the sense of trust in the election, want to be able to maintain that and push back on the russians or anyone else that may try it next time and say not on our system, not ever. thank you. chairman johnson: senator hassan. senator hassan: thank you, mr. chairman. lankford's senator point. one observation i have is that d.h.s. often has very good relationships with homeland security personnel and emergency preparedness folks in the lankf point. one observation i have is that states. the outreach to folks who run elections in the states is kind of a new thing for d.h.s. and i would urge you to marshall the resources that you have good relationships in the states to foster that bridge to the election officials. because we all share this sense

of urgency about 2018. i wanted to follow up on johnson's very important question on the isis diaspora. not all isis members are going to die on the battlefield as you have pointed out. we're going to need a robust strategy for dealing with isis, foreign fighters once the so-called caliphate fails. to that end, secretary duke, i want to ask you about isis team of homeland security investigation officers that are now deployed to 30 u.s. embassies and consequence late. these teams of law enforcement officers, which we call the security teams, are trained counterterrorism professionals who aid the state department's consular offices as they make decisions about whether to grant u.s. visas to foreign nationals of. given -- nationals. given the nance many isis foreign fighters will return to their home countries, it will be even more important that we have these visa security teams at more than 30 u.s. diplomatic

posts where they are currently deployed. can you commit to expanding the number of posts which visa security teams are located? i should note that my staff a is working with the chairman and ranking member staff to do that, but is that something that the department can commit to us on? secretary duke: we're reviewing that right now. so i don't know if more additionally we're increasing vetting overall. that has been very useful to us. senator hassan: we look forward to work wug on that. think a number of us think 30 isn't enough and we want to do all we can to partner with you on that. i also wanted to touch on the issue of white supremacist and neo-nazi threats. i want to echo my colleague from california's concerns. mr. chair, i think we need an absolutely thorough oversight effort in this regard. focused specifically on the threats posed by white supremacists and neo-nazis.

i want to turn to you, director wray, because there are some complexities that go to domestic terrorism versus international terrorism. from an initial review, the f.b.i.'s ability to prevent and address acts of international terrorism appears to be very different from their ability to prevent and address domestic terrorism. for one, while domestic terrorism and international terrorism are defined in statue, as you pointed out there is no criminal offense or charge, as i understand it, of domestic terrorism. although there is an international terrorism offense in charge on the books. the former acting solicitor general said in a media interview if the char lotsville attacker had emerged from his car and announced that he carried out the attack in the name of isis, then he could have been charged with international terrorism. is that true?

would that be the case even though the attacker was merican? director wray: we can charge isis supporters whether they are american or foreign under the various material support statutes and things like that. will i say, senator, i just want to make sure that i'm not the committee in some way about our effectiveness in the domestic terrorism space. our approach in the terrorism arena in both international terrorism and domestic terrorism, and this is a product of the immediate post 9/11 era, is to look for every possible tool we have. a lot of times the best charge may not -- even in the international terrorism arena where we have a statute, may not be the terrorism charge. there may be reasons why it's simpler, easier, quicker, less resource intensive, and you can still get a long sentence with some of the other offenses. that's the approach we have been

taking on domestic terrorism front. where a lot of times there are good, effective, very serious charges we can bring. so even though you may not see them from your end as a domestic terrorism charge, they are very much domestic terrorism cases that are just being brought under other criminal offenses. senator hassan: i do understand that. i also am concerned about making sure that we're doing everything we can to go after these domestic terrorism groups who promote violence. i have just been trying to think through let's say we had a case of neo-naziism terrorism. there is nothing -- as i understand it, the defining factor for a charge of international terrorism can whether the idea -- the ideology that is being espoused comes from outside the united states. so there is nothing american or inherently domestic about nazis. so if the need kneeo nazi carries out a mass murder while

yelling highly hitler, that would -- heil, hitter, that would be an ideology that started outside the borders. could they considered international terrorists? director wray: we have brought neo-nazi cases and will continue to bring them when we have the elements of the offense and i have not been hearing from my folks that they have felt hamstrung in that space. but as i said, we could always use more tools in the tool box to be as effective as possible. senator hassan: i thank you for that. and it goes to the point that there are real complexities and make sure we are giving you the appropriate tools regarding the difficulties of the situation and the real danger of these terrorist groups. i thank all of you for your service and for being ms. herrera beutler: today. senator johnson: senator carper.

senator carper: we have a bunch of hearings going on. i'm pleased to be able to participate at least intermittently. i want to say something. i had a good conversation with the admiral who is a leader at t.s.a. great leader in the coast guard for years. but i think it was on 9/11, this month, there was a report that found that t.s.a. needs to take action to evaluate the security countermeasures. the report from g.a.o. found that t.s.a. lacked some basic information to assess whether its programs are effective in detering and detecting potential attacks on our aviation system. under the previous were tration, there

reforms at t.s.a. and i thought they made a lot of progress but tried to institute reforms in t.s.a. to improve training and work force morale and partnered with airlines and other private sector companies to invest in 21st century screening technologies. as a successor, the admiral who is a very able leader, how lucky to have two guys that qualify. confirm - i voted to him earlier this year. i'm asking as a favor, ms. duke, and work with the admiral to look at the g.a.o. report and make sure that the needed training and acquisition reforms continue in order to ensure that continued security of our aviation system. director duke: we are both

committed to that. senator carper: a question on the revised travel ban. last sunday, president trump issued yet another executive order limiting travel from eight countries. new travel ban is indefinite in length, meaning the nationals from these countries will not be able to travel to the u.s. until such time as the president sees fit to remove them from the list. the other countries are the new ones and have been associated with deadly terrorist attacks in the u.s. some of them are suffering from humanitarian cries sees. it has been reported that president trump intends to cut refugee admissions to some of the lowest levels in history. i have to think some of these acks, the ban may have an adverse impact on our national security. ms. duke, if i could, could you share with us any analysis that the department has conducted to determine the cost and benefit

of imposing a new ban. that would be my question of you. can you share any analysis that the department is conducting to determine the cost and benefits on imposing the ban. then in terms of priority, would this travel ban be in your top final five action items to take and prevent terror attacks on the homeland? director duke: we need better identity management, better vetting of persons. this is what this review is. we have done a thorough review of these countries. we have haven't done a cost analysis of letting terrorists into the country. we have structured it that as soon as a country gives us the information and does the information sharing under the three criteria, we don't want people to be on a travel restriction. it is not in the best interests.

so we are hoping this will give incentives to work with us. refugees are not subject to the ban of any country. senator carper: mr. wray, in terms of travel ban be one of your top five action items? director wray: i don't know i have my priorities in that space to the list, but getting sufficient information from foreign countries to allow us to prioritize targets of interests is very high priority for us, because as you probably know, the name of the game in this space is trying to make very difficult judgment calls under tight time constraints about which subject is high priority and we can't do that without sufficient information from the countries of origin. director rasmussen: yrn i have a prioritization scheme in mind

that would rank our particular activities. in response to one of the other senator's questions earlier, we will provide the best possible intelligence input to what director wray said a very complex decision. and make sure we can do that in a repeatable and consistent and predictable way so the state department and department of homeland security who end up owning these responsibilities can count on the best possible input. we will be limited by the amount of information we have available to us. so we will be in a constant efrlt to increase the information we are relying on to provide that input. senator carper: thank you for your responses. but it seems peculiar to me, interesting at least, that countries that have never posed a threat to us in terms of a threat on the homeland that we are going to say, you can't come here. we aren't going to allow you to travel to our nation for school

or for other reasons. and there are countries that have posed a rogue danger and they are free to come and go. it seems peculiar. senator johnson: senator harris. . harris: -- enator: on page 6 of 27 of the f.a. q. and the question, because it is a frequently asked question is will the information i share, the daca applicants, will the information i share in my request for consideration of daca be used for immigration enforcement purposes. and they are told in this document, individuals whose cases are deferred pursuant to daca will not be referred to i.c.e. i also have a two-page letter

signed by jeh johnson on december 30, 2016, where he indicated, since daca was announced in 2012, d.h.s. has made clear that the information provided by applicants would be safeguarded from other immigration-related purposes. so i would ask you to familiarize yourself with these documents because we are talking about 700,000 young people in this country right now who are in utter fear about their future, about their lives right now, their familiesr their employersr their friendsr and you have a responsibility to be clear about what your agency is doing as it relates to keeping a promise to these young people and thinking about their situation right now and their future. i would also point out to you that i asked you six months ago during your confirmation hearing about this document, which is a

memo from homeland security indicating there were seven new priority enforcement areas. and the seventh, which reads in the judgment of an immigration officer, they may have enforcement responsibilities if, in their judgment, that person poses a risk to public safety or national security. i asked you then what are the factors for consideration and how you train your agents on how they should exercise that judgment knowing that you have limited resources. and there are a lot of people that could fall in that category. you indicated to me you would get back to me on how those agents have been trained and you have not done that. on a separate matter, you have indicated on september 5 that daca would be rescinded and that these individuals would have until october 5 to re-apply otherwise they would fall out of

status. and my question to you is, did your agency directly notify the daca recipients that they will be eligible to renew their application? did you notify them directly or just through the press? director duke: we have not contacted each individual directly. senator: and you have given them a month, one month only to apply to renew their status, which requires them to submit many forms and fill out the information in those forms. it requires them by october 5 to dollar vide a 495 application fee within one month. two uires them to supply passport photographs, federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. and so my question to you is given the responsibilities that they are required to meet to apply before october 5, given

also and we talked about it in this hearing, the impact of harvey, irma and maria, which you consider extending the deadline past october 5? director duke: i'm as passionate doing the right thing and i'm committed to do the right thing. an unconstitutional program that keeps them in two-year limbo is not the right status. senator: are you willing to extend the deadline because of the natural disasters that have occurred? director duke: we have not been notified that natural disasters have affected. there is a money issue, i agree with you there, but the process itself is very simple. right.ill do what is it is a constitutional program and that is constraining and hope we can come up with a better solution.

senator: are 700,000 young people supposed to suffer because you didn't figure out how to implement this program appropriately. are they supposed to be terrified because they can't come up with a lot of money within one month? director duke: it's not to come up with a statute. responsibility. that is something we came up with to end the program in a compassion nature manner. senator: i ask you to consider extending that deadline. senator johnson: i would point out again that one of the reasons many of us asked president obama not to use his executive authority what we believe is unconstitutional because it creates these types of issues. from my standpoint, i want to solve this problem in a humane fashion and i'm happy to work

with you and any member on the other side of the aisle to fix this. we have six months to do it. and let's work together in a bipartisan fashion to humanely resolve this. senator: let's pass a clean dream act. senator johnson: that's not exactly the best way doing it bipartisan. hopefully we can secure our border as well. i want to thank all of our witnesses not only for your testimony, written and oral and the time you have taken, but literally, the commitment you have made to this nation. it's a 24/7 job. ever one of your positions here, it's enormous responsibility. with this, the hearing record will remain open for 15 days. his hearing's adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its

caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org

>> you can find this hearing on our website and the other homeland security assessment hearing that we have covered at c-span.org. the department of homeland security's move to collect social media information on all immigrants including permanent residents and naturalized citizens they wrote a new rule calls to include social media handles associated with identified information and search results in the department's immigrant files.

and will affect u.s. citizens who communicate with immigrants who could crens sore with someone overeas or misconstrued. that is going into effect on october 15. president trump and republican leaders plan to cut the top tax rate for the wealthiest americans to 35% and dramatically reduce taxes on small and big businesses according to details. you can read more. we are following that story with live events. house republicans meeting this morning before unveiling their tax reform plan tweeting out at the tax retreat, we are ready to deliver. the president has announcement later today. g.o.p. members holding a briefing on the retreat in the 2:00 hour. senate democrats shortly over on c-span 3. at 2:00 p.m. here over on c-span

3. the democratic members of the ways and means committee will hold a forum on that tax reform plan live on c-span 3. and president trump traveling in indianapolis to talk about tax reform. we will have that live at 3:20 on c-span 3. >> the c-span bus is traveling across the country on our 50 capitals tour. we stopped in harrisburg pennsylvania asking folks what is the most important issue in their state. >> my name is larry roper and i'm from harrisburg. -- i cerned about the feel they are the hubs of small communities, resource centers to large cities. and the knowledge base to the states. and i am here to make sure that

they are able to get the funding that they need and key ston grant is not taken away from them. >> state legislator for the 104th legislative district here in central pennsylvania. as i go door-to-door. people talk to me about property tax elimination and can't afford to pay the property taxes anymore. however, lately, i have been getting a lot of talk about opioid crisis in pennsylvania, which is something we definitely have to correct and look into. and we will do that and putting more money into it and we plan to solve the problem. >> i'm dana payne. and the most important thing to me in the commonwealth of pennsylvania is continued support and increased support for our educational institutions

nd that is from early age, pre-school to college and also support for the arts. and museums and libraries. >> most important issue facing pennsylvania in my opinion is the responsible energy production that is taking place across pennsylvania. not only because of the direct jobs impact we have seen. we have 200,000 people working today in the oil and gas industry in pennsylvania. but if we maximize our opportunity, we remain competitive, we can bring manufacturing back to pennsylvania and brand new industries and help make energy secure. >> voices from the state on -span. are you now former national intelligence director james clapper talks about his views on evolving